That first Rand quote takes me back to my days as a rabid religious feminist. I would never have admitted it, but that's exactly how we thought.

Kamilla

Actually, I have two things to say in Rand's defense. The first is personal, and I'd like to juxtapose my own Rand experience with that of Mr. Zmirak:



In my case, I didn't read Atlas Shrugged until 2 years ago, long after a lifetime of self-flagellating Christian admonishment had developed in me an abiding sense of non-worth that was inconsistent with how I felt. My experience of Christianity was ever at odds with my self, not just my ego - I believed (implicitly, if not explicitly) that there WAS no such thing as the "healthy narcissism" that John mentions in his article: rather, exercising my talents and being pleased with achievements were signs of sinful pride. I wanted to agree with Shakespeare's "What a piece of work is man", but the saints and the continual admonishment of good Catholics I know kept in perpetual check any healthy appreciation for the glory that is mankind. Modern theology has elements of a Randian glorification of the self, but I believe this itself is a reaction to the opprobrious, guilt-heavy, deprecatory view of the self that was so prevalent in traditional Catholicism (in praxis, if not in truth). So for me, Rand's glorification of man is excessive, but it provided a much-needed balance to one whose sense of Christian obligation was skewed in the other direction.

The second round of props I have for Rand is the artful way she warns us of the creeping dangers of socialism (this is more in "Atlas Shrugged" than in "The Fountainhead", though both contain elements of it). Good intentions of helping those who have less can pave a society's descent into you-know-where. And when charity becomes expected and failure is rewarded while success is punished, we are setting ourselves up for a collapse.

It seems obvious to me that charity has reasonable limits. I am not going to impoverish myself to give money to someone else who is poor. And I certainly am not going to give money to someone I consider to be a "bum" who will not use what I give him to better his situation, but will likely squander it, falling into the same self-destructive behaviors that brought him to the street corner. Maybe it's just semantics, but at some point, giving to others ceases to become "charity" and crosses the line into enabling. Justice must be tempered by mercy, but not swallowed by it. Rand has provided a sound sociological basis for this gut feeling of justice I've always had.

So in short, while I certainly can't gainsay what John has written about Rand and her philosophies and I would be cautious about recommending her to others, I still maintain an appreciation for the truth I found in her novels. And at this particular time in our nation's history, I believe she has something of value to say.

"For men are made for happiness, and anyone who is completely happy has a right to say to himself, 'I am doing God's will on earth.' All the righteous, all the saints, all the holy martyrs were happy."

"Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams."

from The Brothers Karamazov

A very moving commentary, Jason. Thanks for sharing it. Perhaps the good Rand did men like you may have countervailed against the harm she did others. (Is she sharing a duplex with Dorothy Day in Purgatory, where they wear off each other's jagged edges?)

Certainly, I myself have encountered in Trad circles the misanthropy, rigorism, and fetishization of suffering which you speak of. I couldn't articulate at the time what was wrong with it--I just knew it was SICK. I remember my reaction as the following: "If this really were Christianity, I would persecute it myself." Happily, it isn't. Perhaps most of it is the fruit of people living in VERY difficult times, with little food and abundant disease, trying to make sense of suffering. If suffering innocents are all around you (think of the starved, abused 4 year-old girl Ivan speaks of in the Brothers K), and you need to reconcile this with a benevolent God, it's tempting to treat suffering as a good in itself--as poor Fr. Faber did in his excruciating book "At the Foot of the Cross," where he said that suffering willingly accepted is the ONLY currency acceptable in Heaven, and insisted that the lives of Jesus and Mary MUST have been, from birth to death, an unending agony.

Shudder. Wince. Move on.

I don't think this is entirely fair. I had a friend who was very into Rand. He once handed me a transcript from an interview (I think from rand's appearance on Phil Donohue, or possibly Tom Snyder), in which Rand answered that she would contribute to a charity that helped gifted children. And in some of her other writings, she said no one would be prevented from charitable giving out of their own resources.

My experience of Rand is based on lengthy interviews I have seen on TV and YouTube. Like any theorist, there are good points and bad points. Rand's philosophy, if applied to certain arenas like business and industry, produces incredible good for humanity. However, when applied to raising infants, as noted in this article, it doesn't really make sense.

Yet so far as I can tell, Rand normally targets her philosophy to the field of business and industry, and to the remarkable progress and wealth which comes when her philosophy is implemented there. Specifically, whenever the individual is given economic and political freedom to invent and design and be productive, it results in amazing new things which benefit mankind in myriad ways. This is embodied in America's industrial age and the shockingly good progress we benefit from each day. And the usefulness of her views is also proven by examining the total lack of progress and development of communist countries, where individuals are banned by law from applying their creativity and entrepreneurial drive.

Rand's philosophy is not really her own. She simply observed the Industrial Revolution scientifically and found that when humans have economic and political freedom, they do great stuff that benefits all, even though the individual is being motivated by individual interests.

The "virtue of selfishness" always seemed like more of a thought experiment than a real philosophy, and I think where she got into trouble (especially in her personal life) was in trying to make a complete philosophy out of it. She makes a good point that if I make a cake and give it to you, that's called charity, but if I make a cake and eat it myself, that's called selfish. In reality, my motives for making you a cake might be completely selfish (pride, showing off, acting superior), while my motive for making myself a cake might not be (enjoying the talents God gave me). So she had a good point that altruism (or the appearance thereof) isn't always good, and pampering yourself isn't always bad. But to take that so far as to insist that altruism is always bad is just as wrong.

She would have been better off to simply say that everything we do has a selfish motive. When you take good care of your kids, that's because you want them to reflect well on you and treat you well in return. When you give to the poor, it's because it makes you feel good, or because you want to improve the overall health of your community, or because you're "storing up riches in heaven."

Ever since reading her books, which I enjoyed a great deal on their own terms, I've thought it was such a shame that when she rejected the socialism of her homeland she didn't reject its atheism as well. I think that refusal to recognize any value in religious thought--or even to show respect for it in others--held her back a great deal. It forced her to limit her characters and their motives in ways that make her books and ideas much less accessible than they could be.

Which brings up a good question: Who are some authors who write in the Randian style as far as self-reliance and the value of human intelligence and labor, but with more of a Christian bent?

It's interesting that we now have a president who holds this personal philosophy of Rand's, and yet his governing and social philosophy is exactly opposite hers. Makes me wonder what she'd be saying today if she were still alive. Who would she have supported in the last election?

Modern theology has elements of a Randian glorification of the self, but I believe this itself is a reaction to the opprobrious, guilt-heavy, deprecatory view of the self that was so prevalent in traditional Catholicism (in praxis, if not in truth).

I was part of a trad study group in Maine and we all had been brought-up in a way that you describe. We concluded that we were brought-up that way because Catholicism had been crushed and circumscribed by Calvinism in America.

ALL the ancient texts of Catholicism - Catechisms, for example - ALL of them begin with Happiness.

Baltimore Catechism:

6. Q. Why did God make you?

A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

EVERY single one of us in the Trad Study Group began with Happiness when we taught the Faith to our children

Years from now, Church historians will note how few, if any, prominent American Catholics were actually on the Cross with Christ -- during these exuberant, yet sin filled years in American history.

Ayn Rand is one reason why.

The word withering comes to mind: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

Aaron, your remarks remind me of an impression I got reading something Rand wrote. I get the idea that despite Rand's ability to tell a good story and write some compelling prose, I sometimes got the idea she didn't have as good a grasp of the English language as it seemed.

For example, we would say a man who overestimated his own worth or achievements lacked the virtue of humility. Rand called this fellow humble, and said his unjustified estimatate of himself only showed his humility! (I don't remember the exact quote.)

I too have struggled most of my life with scruples and I find the complete lack of scruples of Ayn Rand both repulsive and awe-inspiring at the same time...

The homily from Mass a few months ago got me thinking about my struggle even more acutely when the Priest elaborated on how Catholicism is a religion for adults, but most Catholics receive their catechesis in their childhood. This, he believed and I do too, causes us to learn our faith in a limited and flawed way. I believe that my scrupulosity (if that is a word) is based on this childhood interpretation of my faith. I have subsequently re-doubled my efforts to relax regarding my interpretation of sin and really try to understand what true sin is. It has helped me with the "Catholic Guilt".

This topic also gets me thinking about St. Paul when he said, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

Do you think that our society's obsession with youth and our lack of adult catechesis helps foster our lapse into scruples, and Ayn Rand is thought of by many as a prophet because she rails against these scruples?

And I was delighted to find in it the first ever written attempt to develop a political philosophy in opposition to the collectivism that is at the basis of communism/socialism/fascism/communitarianism. I knew those philosophies were wrong but no one could tell me why. Ayn tried. I eventually backed away from her thinking as I could not accept her atheism, her materialism, or even her claim that knowledge of the 'truth' comes only through the senses. It seemed to me objective truth is something that must exist apart from the human ability to perceive it.

Full circle a couple of years ago I became associated with an adult male lawyer who was fervent Randian. As I got to know him I became aware that he was a psychotic individual who saw himself as a moral crusader at war with anyone whom he perceived as ever crossing him. I don't know how much of his behavior was due to his being a Randian or how much was due to his being a lawyer. I will leave that to others to deduce as we no longer speak.

Superb article on the troubled American novelist Ayn Rand. Her comments on mysticism were interesting. So she's going up against St. John of the Cross? She doesn't stand a chance, so doesn't that violate her principle of looking out for oneself?
And I disagree with Mena when she suggests that business and industry make progress and create wealth by following the gospel of Ms. Rand. Wealth is created, as George Gilder and Rodney Stark write, by altruism and looking out for one's family, neighbors and community.
But I admit I've only read the story that has Howard Roark as a character. Perhaps the others are better.

For the record, that wasn't me. At least I don't think it was...

Alan Greenspan was a fervent Rand disciple--sat at her feet in weekly sessions. Maybe that explains what's been happening to us.

Obama is no Randite, even personally. She would have flayed him skinless, at least rhetorically. She's lucky she died when she did.

There are over 300 passages in the Bible that demonstrate God's love of the poor that Rand hates with such enthusiasm, and promises of ruin and damnation of those who abuse their power and wealth.

It is even suggested that God destroyed Sodom mainly because of its indifference to the poor. Ezekiel 16:49-50 tells us,

“Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.”

Objectivism is the antithesis, the negation of Christianity, even more so than Marxism. It is a doctrine of hatred, it served as one of the primary influences of Anton LeVey, who created the Church of Satan on principles that are barely distinguishable from Rand's. Objectivism is the philosophy to the Church of Satan's anti-theology.

Marx's rebellion against God was in the name of a universal humanism - more than one commentator has observed that 19th century communism owed its existence to Christian principles that Marx, in spite of all of his scrubbing, and in spite of all the murder and mayhem unleashed by those who came after him, could not rid himself of. However misguided they were and remain, entire schools of Christian thought tried to merge with Marx - these attempts strike me as more plausible than any attempt to merge with Rand!

I find, far more dangerous, to set up failure to be rewarded outright- as is currently the case in the financial, real estate, and investment industries. To me, the fraud of lending what you do not own, spending more than what you've earned, and reaping what you have not sown through ownership of mere paper, will cause the collapse far sooner, than giving what you have to the poor. However, having said that:



Charity has no reasonable limit to me- I am after all a third degree Knight of Columbus, Charity is the virtue of our first degree, and Charity even in business has pushed our insurance arm to being the last AAA rated investment firm in Canada and only one of four in the United States to survive the crash of September 2008. But I'd agree with you that charity has a *natural* limit- whether due to the continued sin of the receiver or merely the bottom line pocketbook of the giver. God is the giver of Justice, we aren't, and as far as bare survival is concerned, we need to be forgiving "seventy times seven".

But luxury, beyond what should be due to every human being? That should be reserved for those who work for it.



Suffering is only a problem if you first *assume* scarcity. That's a pretty big assumption at the base of all economics and charity, and one that was proved to be false in at least one arena of necessity (food) last July. Scarcity is artificial, manmade.



This is true- but note her choice. She gives to those who have already been given much- gifted children, not disabled ones (hmm, I have to look into that- is Autism a scam to get money for gifted children by labeling those gifts a disability? This is my own disability- High Functioning Autism). And while giving free will to charity is a great idea, it does NOT insure that the poor will be able to survive and it does NOT prevent revolution from those suffering from injustice, so it fails on both counts of why any group higher than the individual should give.



I have problems labeling that progress as "Good", probably because I thought we were perfectly well off when every man had a job and every woman cared for children and cooked the meals. Heck, I think humanity was quite well off when the men hunted and the women gathered.

OTOH, I see great evil in what Randroidism has done to American Capitalism- I can blame a randroid-style bubble for every economic crash in the United States since before Ayn Rand was alive, starting with the great crash of 1896. These crashes have caused homelessness, ruin of the middle class, even death. So no, I can't see "greed is good" and "enlightened selfishness" as an outright good, even in business. Instead, it is the profit of the whole world, that causes the entrepreneur to lose his soul.

From what I've seen so far, it isn't. Opposite hers, that is. Especially not on economics- Obama is surrounded by Randroids, and has seemed to accept their "greed is good, charity is bad" advice when it comes to how he's dealt with the economic crisis (almost everything for Wall Street, very little for Main Street). Of course, the crisis started on Bush's watch- who also followed the Randroid economic model as he kept Greenspan in office.



You bring up an interesting pair of points. But I've dealt with this in a very different way.

Reality is personal, idealism is corporate. To me, the corporation (whether that be business, religion, or government) *needs* be be scrupulous. It is a sociopathic child that needs to be controlled. The individual, on the other hand, is dealing with a different version of reality- and requires forgiveness, not scrupulosity (which is indeed an illness recognized by the APA).

I don't idolize Rand for that reason- she's got it exactly backwards, by applying her philosophy and atheism to business. The only place selfishness even approaches virtue is in the confines of the family and in service to one's children. And even then, a sense of responsibility is better than a sense of selfishness.



I'm not so sure of your final comment- as I said above to Aaron. Perhaps in his public persona he's no Randroid- but the effects of his policies in dealing with the economic crisis and the fact that he's surrounded himself with Randroids on the domestic-economic side of his cabinet tell a different story- one that should give pause to any Catholic who chose progressive economics over pro-life in the last election.

QUOTE: "I disagree with Mena when she suggests that business and industry make progress and create wealth by following the gospel of Ms. Rand. Wealth is created, as George Gilder and Rodney Stark write, by altruism and looking out for one's family, neighbors and community."

I think you are misunderstanding Rand's point, which is that an individual who has political and economic freedom to invent and seek a profit is the one most likely to create products and services that meet human needs, whether medicines or computers or cars.

Without individual economic and political freedom (i.e., the collectivist systems of socialism and communism), the power of an individual to create progress and innovation is destroyed, and therefore you get no progress and wealth creation.

Individual economic and political freedom is the very reason America has so much wealth and such a high quality of life relative to the other nations of the world. These freedoms from government imposition unleash the power of the individual to produce great progress and wealth, and this directly benefits society and especially the poor.

I am unclear about what Rand would say concerning *free handouts* to the poor. I'm going to guess she would say that it would be better to "teach a man to fish so he can eat for a lifetime" instead of giving a man a fish so he can eat only for a day. In other words, I'm guessing she would reject any welfare mentality that is not designed to help a person gain the skills necessary to not be poor anymore. The poor need to receive the education and skills necessary to become personally responsible.

Christine deserves a second response, because this is important to our faith:
Not only do I think Ayn Rand is considered a prophet by some because she rails against scruples, I think that scrupulosity itself comes from a fear of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I've noticed that in the times when I fall into scrupulosity, the cure is always a frequent use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And most often in that time, the sin I'm struggling with is indeed the sin of Ayn Rand- Vainglorious Pride in being a Catholic and a Knight.

On your model of "vainglory" no one and nothing compares to Jesus of Nazareth.

Here is a human being who decides he is actually God, the Supreme Being of the universe!

And don't tell me his vainglory is less because he 'only' claims only to be the Son of God.

Second, if you ever stopped to grasp the implication of Rand's "gulf of reality" you would have to reset your evaluation of humility. Objectivists accept the idea "Primacy of Existence." This means: objective reality, everything NOT the person, is not subject to the consciousness of the person. We do not create and control the world with our minds. We are in reality; we do not make it.

Compare that simple but proud position with every form of magical thinking, superstition, supernatural power, prayer, faith-as-operational and ultimately that Jesus (or his "father") created the entirety of reality from nothing by his thought.

"Vainglory" is a feeble word to apply to that level of arrogance and hubris.

I don't see much of Rand's economics in American Corporate Capitalism. Maybe some stockbrokers in the 1980s took inspiration from her books; but the statists who run things, from FDR to Bush and Obama, are about as far from Randian as you can get. Rand's industrialists like Roark and Galt never asked the government for regulations to suppress competition. They didn't ask for a central bank authority to provide cheap money for them to borrow. They just asked to be left alone. It was their opponents who clamored for legislation like the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog act that we're coming close to imitating today. It was their opponents who kept insisting that the government needed to control things better to make everyone prosperous.

I know a lot of people like to point out that Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Rand at one time, as if that means when he chaired the Fed we were in a Randian system. But a Randian system doesn't have a Fed. It also doesn't fiat money, or arbitrary tweaking of the money supply by a central authority. So whatever respect Greenspan may have had for Rand's ideas, it had to be gone by the time he took over the Fed, or the first thing he would have done would have been to close it down.

While I have a tendency to agree with you that Rand's philosophy joins more with Satan than with God, I have to point out that Christ was a better communist than Marx was. I've been putting forth the idea, recently, that the Our Father is a blueprint for a utopia- but I've yet to compare it line by line with Marx, and I shall so do here:

Our Father who Art in Heaven - a loving father, not a totalitarian dictator- Hallowed be thy name- God is Holy, not the State or any human being- Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done- and what is his will, other than his children experience the *abundance* he has provided, not set up markets of artificial scarcity- On Earth as it is in Heaven- our existence in this "Veil of tears" should be more like heaven- Give us this Day Our Daily Bread- or as St. Luke (the person Marx plagiarized the most) put it "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"; Acts 4:35, depending on translation- And Forgive us our Trespasses, as we Forgive those Who Trespass against us- this is where Marx (and his followers) utterly failed by exterminating those who opposed him instead of forgiving them, but it's also where the Randroids fail in charity- And Lead Us Not Into Temptation, but Deliver Us From Evil- don't be tempted by materialism as the State is under Marxism or some Entrepreneurs are under Capitalism- keep your moral compass intact.

You mean, it wasn't?

I'm serious. I'm a Catholic afraid of joy and someone who thinks I am guilty at every turn, even sometimes for being alive.

John, do you have any advice to counteract this?

Mr. Seeber, if you're convinced that our current leaders are Randians, which of these major Bush/Obama initiatives would Rand have favored?

Cash for Clunkers
Bailing out Fanny and Freddy
Bailing out the banks
$300 stimulus checks (instead of just lowering taxes)
Stimulus spending in general
Artificially lowering interest rates to spur investment and debt-driven spending
Pushing mortgage lenders to make riskier loans
Faith-based initiatives of any sort
Spending billions trying to civilize Iraq
The Patriot Act, and subsequent increases in wire-tapping
Cap and Trade

I attempted to read "Atlas Shrugged" in college and threw it away in disgust. It is one of only a handful of books I have intentionally stopped reading in my life. Usually when I start a book I finish, come hell or high water.

The main problem I had with it was that I could see the ending coming 400 pages away. The book used a plodding, predictable logic that was clear by page 150. There was nothing left to learn. She could have told her story in about 100 pages.

Rand has some good ideas, but like many reactionaries she takes a good thing way to far. It is one thing to reject collectivism, but proposing atheistic individualism as its antidote is quite another. She really is a pseudo-intellectal. Everything I have ever heard her say is rehashed Nietsche. So what? Nietsche said a few useful things too, but his entire bill of goods is nothing but cruel emptiness.

To me, Rand is a blank check that justifies cruelty. We are in no need of people who justify cruelty. People don't give to charities already. What's the point in a justification?

Dear Patrick,
I'm very sorry to hear this, having struggled with the same thing at times. I strongly recommend seeking out a reliable Christian counselor--either a psychologist or a very merciful confessor, and working through your dangerous scruples. Remember that scruples are what drove Luther to reject the Mass and leave the Church. They were the poison of the Montanist, Donatist, and Jansenist heresies, among others. In terms of reading, I'd recommend "The Practice of the Presence of God" by Brother Lawrence, "The Enchiridion of the Militant Christian" by Erasmus, and "Gateway to Hope: An Exploration of Failure" by Sister Maria Boulding. In terms of prayer, look into both the Sacred Heart and the Divine Mercy devotions, both of which focus on God's love for us.

RE Joe H: "Marx's rebellion against God was in the name of a universal humanism - more than one commentator has observed that 19th century communism owed its existence to Christian principles that Marx, in spite of all of his scrubbing, and in spite of all the murder and mayhem unleashed by those who came after him, could not rid himself of. However misguided they were and remain, entire schools of Christian thought tried to merge with Marx - these attempts strike me as more plausible than any attempt to merge with Rand!"

Universal humanism: The corruption of the best is the worst, just as Satan appears as an angel of light, and the Antichrist will ape, not Apollo (or Atlas) but Jesus. Read Benson's "The Lord of the World" for a picture of the rise of a worldwide, Messianic universal humanism... which leads directly to the persecution of the Church and the End Times.

Marx is a Christian heresy, Randianism a degenerate form of Epicureanism. The closest thing we've ever had to a Randian society was 19th century Britain. Satanic mills and all that, and neglect of the Potato Famine, but nothing REMOTELY approaching the TENS OF MILLIONS MURDERED by Marxist regimes (not to mention mass persecution of the Church). On grounds of prudence and charity alone, that should rule ANY attempt at incorporating Marx's perverted, secular millenarianism into Christianity.

That said, I entirely agree with Solzhenitsyn's condemnation (at Harvard) of modern, degenerate consumerism in the West. I suggest, Joe, that you read Wilhelm Ropke's "The Social Crisis of Our Time" for the best synthesis of realist economics and orthodox Christian social awareness. Seriously, go read it, and if you like it, read the next volume: "The Moral Foundations of Civil Society." These are the reflections of a market economist who sees the dangers of self-consuming secular capitalism.

Re John Donohue: Yes, as C.S. Lewis suggested, if Jesus was NOT God, then He was a dangerous madman who probably needed killing. A very big IF. Vainglory, etymologists will note, includes the suffix "vain," which means false. Taking joy in one's real attributes, so long as one doesn't take undue credit for what one has been GIVEN by others (including God), is not a sin according to St. Thomas. (See the Summa on this: http://tinyurl.com/yfapbn3 )

Christine- I think your quote from St. Paul is spot-on and very relevant to this discussion. And it bears upon the comments made by Patrick from post #26 above. This topic of "breaking free of scrupulosity" deserves a post all its own someday.

My reading of Rand coincided with my finishing law school, and marked a noticeable turning point for my own maturity - I feel freer now to consider advice/admonishment/exhortation from others and weigh it against my own convictions and reject it if I am not persuaded, rather than passively accepting it all, as I used to do. If someone with impressive theological credentials told me I had to do something pious or that thus-and-so was expected of me as a Catholic, I was inclined to just accept it. Now, I trust my own judgment more than that of most others, and I'm working out my salvation with God in fear and trembling, but as an adult.

That's one reason I love this site above many others - it's a blog for hosting "a constructive but civil discussion among mature adults", and despite the occasional chastisement from the dogmatists, I'll make my own decisions, thank you. So others may hate Rand and quote Whittaker Chambers as if that's some sort of authority, but I recognize truth when I see it, and I'm going to appreciate it, even if I find it in places other than (or rather, in addition to) the Catechism.

THAT's the sort of confidence I see in Rand and her characters, and it's inspiring.

Rand's philosophy appears to be embraced as much as it provides a rationalization for a few to dominate the many. Those who are extraordinarily wealthy or powerful are so because of an innate virtue that Rand understood while those mass of people who are inconsequential lack the same virtue. Such an arrangement in which the few horde the wealth is moral and any twinge of conscious that having so much may cause is irrational and to be rejected.

Everyone who reads Rand reads themselves into the role of Reardon or d'Anconia. No one at Goldman Sachs who reads Rand sees themselves as a Wesley Mooch though that is who and what they mostly are.

But that is NOT what we see in reality. Time and time again, the inventor of an innovative product or service dies in poverty- while those who "invested in him" through loans or outright corporate raiding, run away with the lion's share of the profits. This is especially true in high tech industries such as cars and computers- Tucker Automotive, with the Torpedo, took a quantum leap ahead in safety, but couldn't bring the car to market against the big three. Bill Gates got rich off of buying the source code to CP/M and customizing it into PC-DOS. etc.



True enough- even Plato suggested 10 levels of renumeration between the lowest and the highest. But I'd also point out that it is easy to focus on the prize at the expense of the means to get the prize- to lose one's soul while gaining the whole world.



And yet, in many ways, the happy beggar in Nigeria is better off than the richest American in the world.



I have a tendency to agree with that old saying, but when I bring it up to a Randroid, I get "I taught myself to fish, let him teach himself to fish" instead- the self-made man is the only one worth consideration under Objectivism.

A brilliant way to transfer cash from the Stupid (the "clunkers" in question often had a blue book value several times the cash given) to the Randian Gifted (the entrapreneurs who took advantage of this). It was a complete gift to capitalists, with little to no actual value to consumers except in very, very, rare cases.
Reward the rich, put the poor out of their homes.
Once again rewarding the Randian Elite
Individualism in the extreme- giving money to individuals, rather than gasp, funding religious and governmental institutions that help individuals.
Already covered- most of it ends up back in the pockets of the banks that were bailed out.
Service to the usurors who end up with the debt- because the interest rates will go back up. Want to truly spur investment and debt driven spending? Outlaw interest entirely!
Which then pay them back in land taken at foreclosure, with all payments made on the mortgage in the mean time pure profit.

Another scam- few if any truly faith based initiatives got any money from this, we spent more on one day of the Iraq war than the last 20 years of "Faith-based initiatives".
Entrepreneurial land grab for Halliburton, nothing more.

How else are you going to eliminate those darned socialist radicals, if not by calling poor people who don't even know enough chemistry to know that a bi-part liquid bomb is impossible terrorists?



The biggest scam ever- instead of asking people to *sacrifice* harmful industrial processes, let's set up a "free market" to scam the little guy out of money while doing *NOTHING* to actually help the little guy adapt to a changing environment.

ALL of these are based in enlightened selfishness, except for maybe Faith Based Initiatives, which never got the funding promised.

I disagree with your example. The closest thing we have to a Randian society is Somalia since 1990. NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL, it's an anarchist paradise. And the only reason tens of millions haven't been murdered there, is because they only started out with a few million to begin with, the end result has been horrific piracy to the point that no ship can enter their waters unarmed.

Goldman Sachs would be very happy if the SEC would just ignore their scam as well. Being left alone= NO REGULATION AGAINST FRAUD. That's exactly what Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have been doing, instead of re-enacting the legislation that kept us safe for 50 years from this kind of predatory capitalism, they've been busy with slight of hand tricks like "stimulus" to keep us from asking for a reinstatement of the laws that ended the Great Depression. And to a large percent, they've been very successful at preventing "the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog act"s from being reinstated.



The Fed is simply another business making a product- fiat money is just anything that is worthless that people believe is something. The FED isn't even a "central authority", they're not even officially a part of the government, they're merely OWNED by the government. So in reality, they're privatization of a governmental function- something most libertarians and randroids wish we had more of, not less.

Ted,
You have stolen this allegation from one of any number of online forums where this charge is made against radical libertarians. Objectivists are not libertarians.

I've got an idea- Frequent use of the Sacrament of Confession. Find yourself a good Father Confessor, and go weekly before Mass to confess your guilt, and be forgiven of it.

After a few months, you'll run out of things to be forgiven for.

In the case of wanting "no government" both Randroid Objectivists and libertarians are in fact just branches of anarchism. Being left alone is equal to not being discouraged from doing evil- and that is the same whether you worship the name of Rand or Mises.

Thanks, John, for the reading suggestions.

To be clear - I don't agree with Liberation Theology. I think Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered an accurate and devastating critique of their theory and practice.

And while I don't subscribe to the idea that Catholic social teaching condemns "capitalism" - which means different things to different people - it has certainly condemned, in clear and consistent terms, individualism.

Not that that matters at all to some folks.

Well, I agree that GK Chesterton, for instance, called the problem with capitalism "too few capitalists", and in fact considered villiage- and tribal- based distributism a form of capitalism.

But I don't think it's just individualism that the Church has condemned in capitalism either- I think they've also quite clearly condemned corporatism as well, at least of the form that insists on a clear separation between working and manager class, and that considers both merely "human resources" to be used for profit like any other inanimate resource.

In fact, I see that condemned in Rerum Novarum way back at the beginning of the Church's social justice teaching- both the practice and the socialists complaining about it. Separating the interests of workers from owners is in itself an intrinsic evil.

Ted,
How does one maintain a capitalistic system without a consistent system of laws that protects private property? Wouldn't such a system require some sort of government? You seem to be way off base in your assertion.

Speaking of Mises, did you know that Mozart was a Red?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

Ayn Rand did not, as far as I can tell, espouse for no government. If I recall correctly, in Atlas Shrugged, she was for a very limited government that would create and defend the country's borders. I don't remember what else (if there was anything else).

Neither Libertarians nor Objectivists are Anarchists, Ted. Both recognize the legitimate role of government to protect essential rights, such as life, liberty and property. (I'm speaking about the majority of both groups. Obviously any group has fringe elements to it). Minarchists are not Anarchists. But thanks for arguing against a straw man.

(disclaimer: I'm not an Objectivist nor do I like Ayn Rand).

"How does one maintain a capitalistic system without a consistent system of laws that protects private property? Wouldn't such a system require some sort of government? You seem to be way off base in your assertion."

One can always form one's own protection by ownership of weapons. A government isn't necessary to protect private property- force is all that is required. And that's what we see in Somalia- the force of the gun is equivalent to ownership, those who aren't protected or won't protect themselves, such as the ships being taken by the pirates, have no right of ownership.

Of course, Mises would say at that point, one has formed one's own government- and by libertarian definition, he'd be right, for governments are the use of force. But one need not have organization or system, to have a government by that definition- mere money and arms does quite nicely.



I've never encountered that play before. It's interesting, to say the least- and illustrates your point that Objectivists are not Libertarians quite nicely...

The problem with that is, that the domestic individual enemy is as easily a big of a threat to the commons as the external one; more so if he can convince the authorities to "let him alone" to do his dirty work.



The problem there is that the government that is "limited to essential roles" often doesn't have the power or funding to even police those essential roles; stop paying taxes and you've effectively decided to "brightsize" the police force.

The ideal clashes with the reality that the government small enough to satisfy the Objectivists or the Libertarians, is too small to defend itself against the well-armed capitalist.

"Christine- I think your quote from St. Paul is spot-on and very relevant to this discussion" - Jason

and that quote would be:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

Just wanted to point out that Paul was not Christian as a child. Also, before his conversion, he was an "intelligent" adult who could "think for himself" and used those great powers to kill St. Stephen.

I think it would be wiser to consider 2 Corinthians 5:7
"we walk by faith, not by sight"

and Matthew 18:3 "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

IMO St. Paul's rebuke of "childish ways" was his way of saying that before he accepted Christ, his life was as meaningless as a child's ability to reason. After all, when faced with the opportunity to use Ayn Rand like logic to rationalize his very survival, he chose instead to deny himself and accept the will of God like a child, thus, making him a real man and a great martyr.

While we are called to love as adults, that in no way means that we have graduated from the responsibility to be obedient as children. The most astute among us are still but children in the eyes of God.

Ayn Rand, appears as,Naydine Darnell, in, "Crashmaker," a novel in which I learned more about the true nature of America than in all of the texts I read in College.

It is a precis of right-thinking on political economy, constitutionalism, sound money, etc etc.

And, it has a neat idea about how to destroy the Collectivist Temple and return liberty to America. But, it is an idea that'll never be attempted for reasons too numerous to list.

Still, it is a fantastic book packed sardine-tin-tight with true history and it obviates the need to spend an enormous amount of money that is paid to collectivist creeps to lie to your kids at the local Faber College. Why do that when in one novel you can learn the truth?

CRASHMAKER

In the news in the past few days that the Russian Central bank has made gold and silver coins legal tender for the first time in a century. What gives? The Russians backing hard money?

I was astonished not so much at that, but at life imitating art, specifically Crashmaker, a novel by Victor Sperandeo and Alvaro Almeida (Edwin Vieira’s pen name). Only the combination of a mind schooled in the intricacies of markets and a mind schooled in the law, politics, and history could produce one of the most intriguing, original, and exciting novels I’ve ever read.

We know how fragile the fraudulent monetary and financial system is, but have you ever wondered – no, longed to see – what would happen if a small, savvy group of people decided to bring down the system with it own leverage? Crashmaker tells that story.

Because he’s been a friend so long, I felt free to twist Edwin Vieira’s arm for a discount to Moneychanger readers. You can save 33% on this deluxe two-volume hard-back edition of Crashmaker.

I almost forgot. You can also order by phone at (800) 247-6553, or e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Either place, ask for “the Moneychanger discount.”

Thanks.

-- Franklin Sanders

Hi Ted,

Could you drop me an email? Someone would like to contact you.

saint-paul at insidecatholic.com

Thanks.

I wasn't agreeing with Rand, but merely pointing out she wasn't for no government.

Ted,
I took exception to your statement that Somalia represents a perfect Randian state and your more general assertion that Objectivists and Libertarians are Anarchists. I won't be drug into attempting to explain or justify Ayn Rand's thought. I believe as John Zmirak has asserted that Dicken's England was more of a Randian enterprise than Somalia is since England actually experienced an industrial revolution. As far as I know, no real wealth is being created in Somalia at the present time. That is something she would have condemned as the 'men of mind' are not doing what she thinks they should always do, be the engine of the world. It may be more accurate to describe Somalia as a land in which the creators have 'gone Galt' but you did not claim that.

But only under strict governmental supervision and taxes- and the all encompassing eye of Queen Victoria dictating morality to the people.


Only the same "real wealth" that is generated by Goldman Sachs...ransom at the end of a gun. The only difference is the type of gun. The lack of regulation, the lack of morality other than "enlightened selfishness" is EXACTLY THE SAME.



What wise man of the mind, released from moral restrictions, would bother with *creating* wealth when he could just *take* it? In fact, almost none do; the true entrepreneur has other motivations than wealth, it's the "wise man of the mind" that takes advantage of the entrepreneur's attempt by providing him loans and "angel investments" to get started- all with the aim of stealing the fruits of his labor afterwards.

Rand would have condemned it, certainly, but not enough to take a collectivist stand against it; and there will always be men of evil ready to take advantage while the good do nothing.

Mena,
Thank you for your response. Yes,I agree that freedom helps create wealth and progress. Gilder and Stark emphasize the importance of freedom, but they go on to say that we also profit from helping others less fortunate. My impression of Rand is that she thinks selfishness is a virtue. Of course she doesn't call it selfishness; she calls it Objectivism. I guess Margaret Sanger might be in her camp. Perhaps you are reading a little of your own Christian ideas into Rand?

Ted, one question: have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand? How familiar are you with her ideas? (Alright, two questions.)

I can't help thinking that you're just taking everything you think is evil about the market economy, and ascribing it to Ayn Rand, and then attacking it.

For my part, I believe that anything Rand said that was worth saying was said better by somebody else, without her questionable baggage. But it seems the height of uselessness to attack Rand for things she didn't write or believe.

Matt 5:41
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Matt 5:42
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

This is the instruction of Christ - it is not conditional, it is absolute... no caveats - just very direct and simple instruction yet look at all the excuses, evident in some of the comments on here, the justifications for layers and levels of giving, for not giving, for giving just so much and no more, all manner of reasoning and justification on the part of man where none is required by God...

I've read Atlas Shrugged- but that's the only book of hers I've read. Though for a long time I was a great follower of one of her devotees: Robert Heinlien.


No, there's a lot more evil to the market economy than merely calling good evil; and that's the only thing I can ascribe to Ayn Rand, the mood that individual greed is good and that profit is the only motivator worth listening to.

I believe a lot of the rest of what is wrong can be logically connected to that attitude and single-point-of-data motivation, but there are other fundamentals that are problematic for the Catholic as well (a good example that has nothing to do with Rand is the anonymous nature of large markets that encourages price signals, bad as they are, to be the ONLY point of decision in investment and trade).


Agreed. But it is useful to attack Rand for the things her ideas led to- we should always judge an idea on the fruits it brings into the world rather than merely the ideal.

And the main two fruits that Randroids have brought into the world is radical individualism to the point of denying civilization itself; and a practical reduction of the government to allow fraud to take place.

The fact that her intent was different, does not change those two fruits.

Economics has its complexities, as does theology. But it also has basics, fundamentals which no one who wishes to talk about it can be excused from knowing. To say something like "price signals, bad as they are" betrays a willed ignorance of what prices are, which is very, very, very SIMPLE:

They are expressions of how much people want something. They are the economic equivalent of words. They're the means by which we communicate to others how highly we value one good over another. Hence, when I go to a reverent Latin Mass in a poor neighborhood, I put MORE money in the collection than when I'm stuck (perhaps because I'm traveling) at a pricey, irreverent modern parish. Because I VALUE what's happening at one place more than another.

As Ludwig von Mises (among others) demonstrated (see this link for a brief exposition: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=600) this is how the economy works, and the only way any economy can work--short of an absolutely totalitarian society.

But then Ted has already (in other threads of mine which he has hijacked) CALLED for a totalitarian society, praised chattel slavery over the market economy, called for a restoration of the Spanish Inquisition, and said that he wants to create "Hell on earth" for those he considers sinners.

So take what he says for what it is worth.

It isn't ignorance of what price signals are. It's a huge amount of knowledge about which price does not, cannot tell you:

It can't tell you how many children the producer has or what his responsibilities are.

Price can't tell you whether a producer is environmentally responsible, or just dumping his pollution in somebody else's creek.

Price can't tell you a huge number of things. The market is an anonymizer- it destroys community.


And maybe the Popes were right to give us that totalitarian society for 1000 years in the middle ages.


Definitely take it for what it's worth- a wish for a time when the Catholic Church controlled the known world, for a time when even small villages in Europe had enough excess wealth to build a Cathedral without borrowing from a central bank, for the time when the Gospel, not Money, ruled the planet.

I never said I wished for a return of the Spanish Inquisition so much as the Papal Inquisition. But even then, over 350 years, killed fewer people than abortion does today, every day, merely for "quality of life of the mother" and individual profit.

So when you quote Mises, look at what you're defending- individualism at the loss of the village, profit for the few at the expense of the many, and a lack of charity born out of a lack of personal relationship.

And that is what encourages fraud, more than anything else- decisions made on price, without regard to human friendship and love.

Which goes back to Rand's point about selfishness, as I understood it when I read the book. You don't give that extra money to make yourself poorer; you do it to promote something you value, something which makes your life better. As I understood her, she wasn't so much promoting selfishness as we understand the word today, but trying to say that a lot of what we call unselfish or altruistic is actually selfish, if we'd be honest about our motives. When I give money to my church, there are "selfish" motives there, and that's okay.



Thanks for saving me the argument. I'll just say that if you think Reardon Steel is the same thing as Goldman Sachs, then you've missed the whole point of the book. The scams and booms/busts that happened at places like Goldman were possible because of government control of the money supply and regulation of the financial sector. Galt never said he wanted to be rewarded with anything (remember that in Galt's Gulch they refused to even borrow things from each other). It was the Wesley Mouches who said if they could just get a boost from the government and a Plan to protect them from competition, they could be productive. Galt just wanted to be allowed to get rich if he could do so by freely exchanging his labor with others. There's a difference.

You must be entirely unfamiliar with Ayn Rand's thought to make a statement like that. Neither Objectivists nor libertarians believe such drivel. Goldman Sachs does not generate a penny of wealth. It loots wealth from the productive sectors of the economy with the help of its ownership of the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank. It is as anti-Randian an enterprise as one could imagine.

I believe that Rand's lasting contribution is this: she advocates that individuals be given economic and political freedom because it unleashes the greatest innovative potential of the human being, **resulting in unprecedented entrepreneurship and creative outputs that benefit all humankind.** Who can argue with that?

Her argument is that if you really want to raise the standard of living for all humanity as a collective whole, you must give individuals political and economic freedom to take responsibility for their own personal lives and economic futures. She rightly believes that it is natural for humans in that situation to become very innovative, productive and efficient as they create useful new products and services that meet real human needs. She would point to all of the innovation of the Industrial Era as proof of man's ability to do amazing things when NOT restricted economically and politically by the State. So she sees a very limited role of federal government.

I just don't see how anyone can argue against this perspective when applied to industry and politics. I see nothing objectionable in it. As with every philosopher, the Catholic Church can take the good and improve upon it to make it better while rejecting the dross. This is also the case with Rand.

....could be the Sanity of Ayn Rand. That could end with a question mark or a period, depending on what your ideological tastes are.

By many accounts, Ayn Rand was a self absorbed, thin skinned spiteful ego maniac. The story of the Chambers Review and her subsequent treatment of William F. Buckley is a case in point. But here we are talking about her ideas, not Ayn Rand the individual.

I have always viewed the fawning of her self described disciples over her books with suspicion. As someone who is Burkean and a traditionalist, I see an utter incompatibility and disagreement with it. I don't find her thought to be Objectivism, but Objectionable....corny play on words intended.

Mena you are incorrect. Ayn Rand never made the argument that individuals should be "given" freedom so that the resulting benefits would accrue to "all humankind."

First of all she would consider it an insult to think that humans need to be "given" freedom. Man is naturally free and autonomous. Her politics consists of the state doing nothing but protecting the default freedom a man is born with and especially with political institutions being forbidden and blocked from infringing on that freedom.

Second, she did not justify her position on the grounds it was for the common good or any other collective platitude. Freedom for the individual, and the absolute ownership by the creator of wealth he creates, are sufficient, moral and admirable in and of themselves and require no further justification.

Rand was not an altruist. She considered sacrifice an abomination. Her creed was to never live for someone else nor allow another to live for her.

I'd have to go back and review them, but the Mike Wallace/Rand interviews dealt with free market capitalism vs. socialism. Wallace was on the socialist side of big State regulation, and Rand was on the side of economic freedom and the need for individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Rand's pro-freedom views were forged by living in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution; the Soviets crushed her family and confiscated her father's business. From then on she championed property rights, capitalism, and a limited federal government. She was an opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state. (No wonder, for she saw what Russia did to destroy the spirit of mankind.)

In the interviews I have watched, she argues that mankind achieves amazing progress when not bound by dictatorial nanny State oppression. The history of the United States proves this is true, and Rand knew firsthand the economic and personal oppression of her communist Russia. She was fascinated by America because it was an experiment in what humans can do without heavy handed government oppression. As any good objective scientist, she noted that the U.S.A. was out producing the rest of the world by a thousand times and raising the quality of life and standard of living for humanity.

I can't see how any Catholic can oppose those particular points of Rand. There's just nothing evil there. It's all good.

I can- because it doesn't. Only civilization- the banding together into communities, villages, tribes, and cities can give the infrastructure individuals need to be free.

Dump any of Rand's "wise men" into the forest, and the most they will achieve is a hermitage.

Only by depending on civilization, community, and trade, can wealth be built.

Banding together into communities, villages, tribes, and cities is something that has happened everywhere and everywhen people have thrived. Even the communists did it. For some reason, what Ayn Rand found in America was different. Whatever her faults may have been at least she applied her intellect in an attempt to understand that difference.

Mena where di dy Okay mena, you are struggling mightily to find a collectivist motivation in Ayn Rand. I repeat, she would not appreciate it. Yes, Rand does know, and did discuss on Wallace and many places, that as a result of utterly rejecting altruism and statism for individual autonomy and freedom a civilization fares well. She would attribute it to the removal of force as a threat to the productive, not directly to the liberation of any magical "general welfare beneficence."

Since you seem to have picked up on Rand through short video clips, can you tell me where you got the long analysis of Rand's physiological motivations for her philosophy? Your paragraph, written with a tone of authority, is know to every Objectivist as a red herring and marker for weak minds who cannot challenge her philosophy directly and so twaddle on the purported emotional motives. Rand identified that form of argument as a fallacy called "psychologizing".


Ted Seeber you are totally upside down. Here are your corrections:

Only by respecting total absolute individuality before the law can humans risk banding together closely, such as in cities. Not the other way around.

Rand's wise men dump themselves into "the forest" in her fiction and build a magnificent peaceful assemblage where they can enjoy each other's company and freely chose to associate -- or not. In real life "Rand's wise men" are the productive who voluntarily build businesses, families and wealth as a cure for "dependency", not because of it.

John, I agree with you that she attributes the removal of State force as the key to unlocking individual human potential. (And who today argues in favor of Statist tyranny?)

It is clear to me from her interviews that she is not arguing in favor of "self-orientation for selfishness sake." Rather, she argues that individuals with political and economic freedom are more productive in every measurable way. (She's very utilitarian that way.)

Moreover, she's obviously comparing American freedom and its amazing results to the life-crushing Russia of her youth, which was centered in the removal of economic and political freedom in the name of State-enforced collectivism.

So, I think Rand needs to be read within her historical context and not misapplied much beyond that.

Mena, Who is Ayn Rand? Do you know anything at all besides this one clip you are watching?

Here is your correction once again, from a 50-year Objectivist:
1) Rand's justification for individualism and freedom is NOT utilitarian. It is rooted in her philosophy and reducible back to her metaphysical axioms. Can you refute that (in order to replace it with your trivial psychologicalizing doodling?)
2) In a random clip you found, she does make the comparison of America to the Soviets. Put that in its place, a small but inspiring nugget of a posteriori confirmation that her Politics, which rests on her Metaphysics and Epistemology, is correct. The clip/comparison flows FROM her life's work; it does not generate it.

Went back and watched the Wallace Interviews, John. Rand is absolutely right when she applies her views for capitalism and against communism. But she is confused about what altruism is and is not. Here are a few observations:

Rand argues for a morality based on logic and reason. Catholic morality, in the Natural Law tradition, is also rooted in reason. That is, Catholic morality can be demonstrated to be true and necessary using reason alone.

Rand says pursuit of happiness should be every man's goal. Catholicism also values man's happy state, noting that immoral acts like theft and adultery and murder and other unrestrained selfishness actually destroy the ability of anyone to have peace and happiness.

Rand says man must not be forced by the State, by which she's speaking of Russian communist oppression. The Catholic Church has taken clear sides against Russian communism. Wallace rightly notes that Rand is out to destroy Government-regulated economy, meaning she's capitalist and anti-communist. I couldn't agree more.

Rand scorns God and religion, but it is obvious that she misunderstands religion as mysticism and fails to realize that Catholic morality and teaching are based on reason. She's simply ignorant on the subject.

On the topic of altruism, Rand routinely confuses free self-giving for a person in need as equal to coerced slavery. But altruism involves *temporary free acts* of giving and caring, which is entirely different from slavery. Caring for another person in their time of need is not a 24/7 job, as she seems to portray it. Rather, it is a situation in which one temporarily suspends one's care of self so as to help one's neighbor in the same way. Rand would be accurate only if we're speaking of 24/7 coerced slavery to another person, which is not what altruism asks of men. She's simply confusing slavery and altruism. Rand clarifies her view by saying that no man can demand another person to give up their life to serve him, *which is correct.* In truth, she is rejecting *slavery,* not altruism---but she doesn't know the difference very clearly in her mind.

Wallace asks her why love of others is immoral, and she clarifies that it is immoral *if love of others is done to the total negation of care for oneself.* Christ would agree, for the commandment is to love one's neighbor AS ONE loves oneself. Christianity does not ask people to become slaves to others, but to freely show care for others even as they care for themselves. So, I agree with her that slavery would be immoral.

She argues that marriage based on altruistic love would necessarily be a love that has no self-consideration at all. But this is not what altruism demands. She is arguing against a straw man. When she clarifies, she says love in marriage should be love of the good virtues in another person. Who disagrees with that? (I would add that spouses must demonstrate patience when confronting each other's bad habits.). She argues that people should strive for merit and virtue, and so do Catholics. The very essence of Catholic salvation is that God creates a system by which man can regain true virtues.

Basically, Rand's errors come down to her inability to see gradations. She's tends to see "all or nothing" when she considers a concept, which is a flaw in her analysis.

In the end, in matters of personal relationships, she's ultimately against slavery, not altruism.

Finally, she's completely right in her opposition to socialism, for she knows firsthand what Russia was like. Stupid Wallace cheers communism in America simply because the people choose it democratically. What a kook.

In discussing capitalism v. communism, Rand says: "I'm for the separation of State and economics...if you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men."

So, she clearly has a utilitarian and collective goal in mind: peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among mankind. She believes that her separation of State and economics would help produce that well-being for the good of all.

I am cured!

50 years an Objectivist and a few persistent paragraphs by mena now slap me up the side the head!

Ayn Rand, the great collectivist utilitarian for harmony and well-being for the good of all. HOW could I have missed this?

Maybe I should look into becoming a Catholic! Surely I got that wrong too.

John, my other longer post is lost in the Inside Catholic approval queue. But in it I make some analysis about Rand's comments to Wallace on Capitalism. I also comment on her misunderstanding of free altruism, which she plainly confuses with slavery. Perhaps it will appear soon and you can read it.

I compare some of her thoughts with Catholicism, too. Perhaps you might consider Catholicism for yourself because it is has a morality based on reason (Natural Law) and it preaches a non-slavery form of charity which balances care of self/personal responsibility with care of others. Even Ayn Rand was not opposed to reasonable acts of kindness towards others which did not reduce oneself to a slave. Christian altruism is not to be confused with slavery, as Rand does. That is, Rand was unable to think in terms of gradation. She mis-defined altruism as an "all or nothing" activity---it had to be either/or. You either cared for self OR you cared for others. She could see no in-between. That's where her mistake lies.

But on Capitalism and individual liberty and rights she waxes brilliant, and my quote of her shows that she did seek a collective benefit to humanity, which equates to the common good.

mena, you are not the first person to try to weld religion to Objectivism. You technique is to declare Rand ignorant and full of errors, else she would see the wisdom of Catholicism. I only feel bad that you could not have met her before she died so you could have saved her as you are saving me.

Now, to turn off the sarcasm: altruism is a vicious, totalizing morality of self-immolation. The word was invented by Auguste Comte and affixed to his Kantian creed of utter duty devoid even of inclination or satisfaction in carrying it out, just as Kant ordained. A culture that drinks at that fountain -- even if a little less radical than Comte -- is ripe for totalitarianism and statist/collectivist insanity. One century of such drinking at the font of the German Romantic Philosophers and Germany was primed for Hitler.

Rand dismisses the stupendously watered-down false definition of "altruism as being kind and helpful once in a while" and goes to the root and finds the original meaning of the word, identifies it as the ticket to slavery, then refuses to relent on the damage the idea has done every time it has arisen in history.

Here is an essay that will lead you to the actual meaning of altruism, and also demonstrate that if anything Rand "went easy" on the concept.
http://jrdonohue.com/altruismrandcomte.pdf

You claim that Catholicism is not mystical, just this nice social club where everyone is highly encouraged to be interested in their own affairs but stop once in a while to help the random person in need. Fine.

Then cease teaching little children about heaven and hell, prayer as something practical, that they are sinners, about Jesus dying for their sins and how their soul belongs to God. Those are the teachings of altruism and mysticism.

Just stick to the Self-Interest that Ayn Rand espoused, but okay, they can collect canned goods for the poor once in a while. (sarcasm returned!)

Finally, Catholicism's morality is not based on reason and for the fourth time Rand did not seek a collective benefit to humanity or the common good. She did know, however, that as a result of adopting her philosophy, religion and altruism would be rejected by the world and everyone would be better off.

John, Catholicism is compatible with many aspects of Objectivism. But let me restate some points and add new ones.

You said she dismisses the definition of altruism as being freely kind and helpful in temporary situations. But that's her mistake, for Catholics aren't arguing for slavery. It's clear from her interviews that she confuses charity with slavery. When Wallace presses her on it, she modifies so as to say that a partial kindness to others that doesn't require something akin to slavery would be acceptable. Well, duh. The Catholic view of charity is not slavery.

In Catholicism, one has absolute responsibility to care very well for oneself with all virtue (and Rand loves the virtues), and then offer the same level of care to others in temporary situations of great need. This is nothing like slavery, and it's a shame no one helped Rand clear that up in her mind. Catholicism never advocates slavery.

Where Rand is right on is in her praise of capitalism against the people crushing systems of socialism and communism. Wallace asks how her philosophy translates to the world of politics/economics, and she slams him to the mat: youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0

Great stuff there.

The real tragedy of Rand is that she did not contemplate the best way to sell her ideas to the Christianized West. The Marxists were more savvy than Rand, for they figured they could sell the West on their fascist tyranny if they simply cloaked State-forced confiscation of wealth and property in Christian terms and phrases. The deception has worked well, for Christians are easily deceived by policy decisions that sound like they have "good charitable intentions." (Just look at some of the defenders of State-coerced theft here at Inside Catholic.) Because Marxism is deceitful in this way, many Christians fall for it. Sadly, Rand was not as clever as the Marxists in her rhetorical strategy.

Finally, Catholicism's morality is largely centered upon the concept of Natural Law, which is solely reason based and requires no special revelation. So, you should study up on Natural Law to see this is so.

As for virtues, you and Rand believe in them. Yet, if there is no Creator, the very concept of "good acts" and "bad acts" is exposed as arbitrary. Moreover, why should anyone resist their evolved instincts to steal, kill, cannibalize, or leech off of others when all these behaviors are common in the animal kingdom? The entire concept of "rights" is a theological one predicated on the existence of a Creator. Rand is a believer in "rights," but rights don't exist in the animal world. As for heaven and hell, this is simply the concept of justice, and I'm sure even you believe in prisons. Jesus' life and death is inspirational and transformational because Christ is a man who upheld justice, virtue, and love even under pain of death and did not ever relent. That's motivational in a way that I think even you can see.

You are perhaps being too gracious with Ayn Rand. She was more familiar with Catholic social teaching than you believe though maybe her knowledge was never anything better than superficial. In her anthology, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she dedicates one chapter to attacking a papal encyclical, probably Populorum Progresso, labeling the article - Requiem for Man. She felt strongly that what the Catholic Church taught was real slavery. It is simply not a given that if she had been exposed to the wisdom of Catholic thought that she would have ever come around. That does not mean that Catholics cannot look for the good in her thinking.

Michael,

After re-watching her Mike Wallace interview, it's absolutely clear that she has a mistaken understanding of charity. She definitely confuses it with slavery and sees no gradations. Each time Mike Wallace presses her on this, she answers by saying that human kindness to others is reasonable so long as it is not slavery. Well, duh!

But it's bizarre that she doesn't make the distinction between daily situational acts of charity/kindness and slavery. I can't imagine what caused that error in her thinking. Perhaps it's the language barrier?

Her personal experience with communism. Her knowledge of collectivist movements which she considered Christianity to be an example of. She considered slavery to dead saints to be just as odious as slavery to live leeches.

Those two final sentences were so beautifully crafted.

mena and Michael, i already cleared up your confusion. If you are ignoring me, fine. But you can't claim you were not answered. Rand was not confused. There was no "error in her thinking." There is no language problem; she was brilliant in her precision with words.

Ayn Rand understood Catholicism far better than you do. I've already provided a clear explanation of why she condemned altruism, plus a link to an essay that shows the REAL meaning of altruism. Just because you choose to call "daily situational acts of charity/kindness" altruism does not mean you are correct in your usage. Once again, your meaning is a vastly watered-down secularized nicety, compared with the real thing. If you are a member of some sort of "reformed" Catholicism that does not believe in obedience to God, nor selflessness as a virtue, nor of sacrifice, and "altruism" just means small acts of kindness, then very well. Be aware that over history, and in many places in this world at this moment, Catholics are driven by the virulent, root, real meaning of altruism, not your nicety.

Here, I'll try one more time...visit this link if you actually wish to read what she wrote about it.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

John,
If there is anyone here who is confused it is you. I have already stated that Ayn Rand would never have found Catholic philosophy acceptable. I will now go further and state categorically that my knowledge of Catholicism is superior to both hers and your own. I do not understand why Mena is so insistent upon convincing herself that Ayn Rand would have rectified herself with Catholicism if only someone had explained it to her as I do not believe that could have ever happened. The highest virtue in Catholicism is self-sacrificing love and Ayn Rand considered self-sacrifice to be immoral. Is that clear enough for you? As John Zmirak already explained in his article, she was far too vain to have ever considered the possibility of a higher good than herself.

For your own personal information I have not only read Atlas Shrugged but I also own the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and the New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. I am not basing my knowledge of her thought on a single interview with Mike Wallace.

There was no "error in her thinking." - John

And there is the punchline. Once again the Cult of Rand rises to the level of a religion. Ironic though, that very few women join this cult.

I also find it amusing that after babbling on about politics and philosophy, they finally get to the two issues that Ayn-heads desperately want to address...
- They are brilliant as was their leader Dear Ayn
- Religion is for stupid people

It's apparent that the concept of true Christian Charity can't be defeated head on, so they merely change the topic to "altruism" and knock that staw man over with their windmill. Similarly, I've had discussions with some of these cult members who refuse to use the word God, but instead refer to Him as the nonexistent supernatural... too funny.

Mr. Donohue, if the Cult of Rand is so truly intellectually blessed, why is it that they spend so much time smoking pot and watching Star Trek?

Michael,

Rand was in fact arguing against slavery. She was having definitional problems. So when she argues against "altruism" we can just substitute the word "slavery," for that is what she really means.

She did not think of charity towards others as something being freely chosen or balanced with normal personal responsibility for oneself. It never entered her mind that kindness and charity could be balanced with personal responsibility within the same 24 hour period. But that was crazy of her. The Russian propagandists must have messed her up on that.

There is no doubt that Rand made a strawman out of charity, called it altruism, and fell into the fallacy of the false dilemma.



In her world there were no families with loving parents. There were no deep friendships. In fact, there was no such thing as love except for love of self. There could exist no obligations to others since to her that was to invite the totalitarianism of socialism, a cruel government imposed collectivism. A Catholic can solve this problem by not proposing a governmental solution to society's problems but note how tempting it is to fall into the trap of socialism for so many Christians.

It's disturbing to hear so many Catholics jumping to the defense of Ayn Rand. However, I can well understand it, as I completely fell under her influence in college. I tried for a long time to reconcile my Catholicism with Objectivism, but eventually realized what she herself proclaimed: You cannot be an Objectivist and still believe in God. The two are irreconcilable. You can either believe in Ayn Rand or Divine Revelation. I think the problem is that most modern Americans have grown up in a society where reason and individuality have been suffocated by the prevailing left-wing ideology. But to the Randians I have to say that she didn't invent reason or individuality or capitalism. She just popularized knowledge that had been lost and packed it into a cohesive philosophy. Don't believe her claims. Come back to the Faith.

Michael,
"I am not basing my knowledge of her thought on a single interview with Mike Wallace." No, but mena is, apparently, since I never got him to respond to anything else and when you jumped in I was responding to both of you.

Next, thank you for at least setting the record straight that at least one person here has actually read Ayn Rand and gets that Objectivism is totally incompatible with religion, and for the exact reasons you state. That is a relief, as it was frustrating to continually bump against the opposite.

Needless to say, while happy to have your corroboration, I reject your conclusion that self-sacrificing love is a good thing. That's the essential mystical magical thinking...that the destruction of something good magically leads to something better. It's the essential contradiction in altruism and mysticism that Rand hunts down and exposes.

A nod to Jeff who also identifies the incompatibility of Objectivism and religion, but then on the peculiar argument that she "didn't invent reason and capitalism" feels it sufficient to thereby advocate a return to faith! That's a new one.

On Zmirak's claim that Rand was too vain to "consider the possibility of a higher good than herself" . . . I can't locate exactly where he said that, but on the probability he did, my response is: if that supposed "good" demands an ante, a sacrifice, a miracle and faith, then the rejection of it is sanity, not vanity. Not to mention the total blackout of worship of high aspiration and achievement, hope for the future, love of man and this earth. Yes, I realize that type of worship is no doubt considered sinful to a Catholic. But why do you think her writing is so popular? Because she is a twisted hateful vain self-obsessed soul devoid of a powerful, inspiring vision of the good, and people love her for her because that type of dead soul shines through? Sorry if you think that's why so many millions of people value Ayn Rand.

Jeff,

There are elements of Rand's political philosophy that are Jeffersonian and compatible with Catholicism. When it comes to capitalism vs. communism, there are few spokespeople as sharp as Rand who can expose the severe moral problem of communism as it relates to loss of individual inalienable rights. I highly recommend Part II of the Mike Wallace interview on YouTube. She makes mince meat of Wallace's socialism.

Next, Rand was wrong that one can't reconcile Objectivist philosophy and Theism. She asserted so because she wrongly believed all religion was based on mysticism and not reason. But as you and I know, Catholic morality is based on reason (Natural Law) accessible to all people apart from special revelation. She did not know this. She thought religious morality always came from mystical prophets who sit on a mountain top and come down and impose their "revelations" upon thoughtless masses. That model doesn't apply whatsoever to Catholic moral reasoning in the Natural Law tradition.

Finally, you are right that she didn't invent reason or individuality or capitalism. But I see no reason to ignore her as a political philosopher simply because of her limitations and errors. She's very useful for our time as the U.S. slides into socialism.

Like with any philosopher, you keep the baby and throw out the bath water. She did credit her sole influence as Aristotle. That's in keeping with Catholic philosophy.

Catholics who oppose (as I do) the expansion of the State and the unjust redistribution of wealth don't need Ayn Rand's arguments--and I think it's clear from the robotic hostility displayed by her partisans in this exchange what effects her worldview has on the psychology of those who adopt it. Instead of Charity, they work to cultivate an Apollonian Scorn. This Scorn is almost as damaging as the Envy that suffuses the rhetoric of Leftists (including Catholic Leftists).

The two groups richly deserve each other.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the further insight. So what say you? Do you think that Ayn Rand thought too much as an adult so she could not value religion and altruism on an intellectual level, or do you think that she thought too much as a child which made her too selfish to think of others?

I find all of this conversation fascinating, as I found Ayn Rand fascinating, as she was an savant-idiot (not idiot-savant). She was breathtakingly spot-on in her observations in some areas, and completely obtuse when it came to to others. There is no in between for our lady in the spotlight.

In answer to you Mark, IMO, we have to have the souls of children to love and trust God and we have to have the brains of adults when contemplating his ways, as Christ sent us out as lambs among wolves. He implored us to love as lambs yet be cunning as wolves.

I have also been fascinated by the few people I have known who are geniuses. They are usually very lacking in some area of their knowledge and/or grasp of the universe. I attribute this to God only being able to fit so much in to the finite capacity of the brain. I also Hope (spiritual) that God reconciles this within us when we pass from this mortal coil. I truly hope this happend for Ms. Rand, because while her economic and political thoughts made her famous, her personal demons made her very lonely indeed.

Since I am not the only partisan here, I will speak only for myself in that I dearly hope it is not I whose hostility fell to the level of robotic; I try to stay creative in my hostility.

There is a tremendous amount of psychologizing going on here, complete with capital letters for the emotional trigger words. Emotional conjecture is rampant. Why is that? Can't you actually address the philosophic content without ad hoc making the thinker wrong and then bandying about pop psychology analysis of a person you never met or gained the confidence of? I am sure you are aware of the fallacies "On The Person" that one descends to when one is unable to address the thought of the other.

Mr. Zmirak you are the provocateur of scorn on this page. Your essay is rife with contempt, including the despicable wire monkey paragraph for which you have no actual basis, only your fettering disapproval gone rancid. Every paragraph is studded with pejorative adjectives, as if your rational analysis required punches.

There, how's that for non-robotic hostility.

P.S. your paragraph on Rand not acknowledging the achievements of others is void. She shows in her epistemology that the identification of objective reality leading to a conceptual mode of thinking and language, and common intercourse upon this mode, is the essential unconditional bequeathing of one human to another and the history of minds past to the future. She also makes the case that her 'heroes' (every productive person) bequeath value to others of both more and less brilliant achievement simply by rational activity and volitional interaction/trade. Sorry that you are blind to that. Perhaps (ironically psychologizing) that is because none of the above is charity in your mind.

Dear Mr. Donohue,
Pardon me for being unclear. I was referring to your hostility to Mena, who was trying to convince Catholics to read Rand sympathetically--not to me, since my intent was different. I hope Mena comes to agree with you that Rand must in the end be swallowed whole or spat out. Also, I wasn't engaging in psychologism; I think that Ms. Rand's character flaws were the RESULT, not the cause, of her philosophy.

Read and listen to and read Ayn Rand and you will hear someone who advocates for everyone's liberty and freedom to choose. Those who take exception to her positions I find are opposed at their very heart to those ideals, whether they know it or are willing to admit it.

Hi Christine,

"In answer to you Mark, IMO, we have to have the souls of children to love and trust God and we have to have the brains of adults when contemplating his ways, as Christ sent us out as lambs among wolves. He implored us to love as lambs yet be cunning as wolves."

I think you pretty much nailed it. I would just add that we need to discipline ourselves to use our brains with humility because nothing seems to lead to narcissism faster than intellectual pride.

"So what say you? Do you think that Ayn Rand thought too much as an adult so she could not value religion and altruism on an intellectual level, or do you think that she thought too much as a child which made her too selfish to think of others?"


Ayn Rand, born Alisa Rosenbaum (kind of ironic that someone who constantly lectured on objective truth should conceal her real name) was a unique, intelligent and interesting person. However, I usually find ideas to be less interesting than the motives behind them and the ramifications of their practical applications.

It has been said that "hard cases make bad law" because the exception should be viewed as proving the rule and not making the rule. The World War II era was an extreme one for the world and therefore, philosophies should not be based on that experience any more than investment theories should be based on the "dot-com boom" of the 90's. When grading on a curve, teachers often throw out the highest and the lowest test scores so as to eliminate extemes and more accurately define the norm. Believe it or not, I am actually coming to a point here...

Many Jews who survived WWII understandably became atheists and sided with the Soviet philosophies because it was Russia who physically entered Berlin and brought an end to the Hitler regime. The old Arabian proverb comes to mind "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Because of the WWII events, many Jews today are left-wing to the point of Socialist. The extreme experience of the Holocaust left many Jews in a confused, angry and depressed state... understandably so.

Ayn Rand lost everyone in her immediate family during WWII with the exception of a younger sister. It is my opinion that Ayn Rand was a strong individual who refused to consider herself a victim. For these reasons (among many) I think her philosophies were a byproduct of her psycological defense mechanisms. When people lose loved ones as rapidly as Ms. Rand did, it is not surprising that she made love (God) the culprit. Maybe if love (God) does not exist, then I will no longer feel the pain. Denial to the point of mental illness can be worse than drug abuse because there are never any moments of clarity.... IMO

Thanks, and I enjoy reading your posts.

Ralph,

I understand what you are saying, and as I have mentioned before in my earlier entries, Ayn Rand is spot on in some of her thoughts. You, however, did bring up the Catholic problem with Rand's positions.

Rand did dislike religion, and made mention to it several times. While I will be the first to admit that I know much less about Ayn Rand than many of her adherents, as she did not catch my imagination, we can agree that she was a big proponant of freedom and liberty.

Jesus' philosophy was centered around love. His freedom was based upon love and upon responsibility towards our neighbors through love. This is why we believe he came to earth and died a terrible death, out of love for us. He wanted us to have life and have it abundantly. This sacrifice he made out of his love for us, who are inferior to him in every way, and not worthy of this great sacrifice. This fact, his very being on earth, runs counter to the freedom Rand espouses.

To prove this point, during his time on earth, When asked, On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

I ask you - does this fit into Ayn Rand's world view? Would she sacrifice any of her freedom or gifts for those unworthy or inferior? This is why she seems vain. She has placed herself over others, when Jesus suffered and died for her.

Like her or not, and I don't agree with all that she wrote, I teach Rand's book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" in a university philosophy/ethics course. The reason is simple - it entices students (and me!) to think. I firmly believe in voluntary charity, although I have some reservations - serious ones! - about involuntary charity, such as requiring "X number of hours of voluntary community service" as a REQUIREMENT for graduation.
By looking at her ideas, reflecting on their implication, we can learn more about ourselves, more about our Christian faith, and more about how an ethical person should or could live in the 21st century.

I recently e-mailed a person who publicly claims allegiance to Ayn Rand and asked him, "If Ayn Rand had believed in God, would you also?" He was kind enough to e-mail me back with the response "If Ayn Rand believed in God, I would not believe in Ayn Rand"

Thanks Mark,

Your information was very interesting and I am a member of your fan club as well (love your posts).

I also love the fact that I always have typo-os when I post. It reminds me how I am at times the most daft person in the room. God gives me these gifts to keep me humble, because I would probably be a legend in my own mind if not for His loving Grace.

Your info did cast a spotlight on Ayn's psyche. It makes her boldness of vanity more understandable. I will remember to keep her in my prayers.

Another kiss from God - that was my post. it keeps me humble I tell you. I am so cool. - duh.

Ayn Rand (and her works) have always been a sort of horror show, although 'Atlas Shrugged' is a good story.

Rand often cites Aquinas as one of the top three philosophers of all time - the other two As being Aristotle and Ayn herself. Overall you make a good point, but here it seems to me you're willfully misleading people.

Why did you label this "Evidence of a Cult"?

Hi John,

One definition of Cult: "great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book)"

Actually I believe that there are several cult-like worlds which have begun to collide among which are atheism, Darwinism and Rand's objectivism. My own experiences with folks (almost always men) who gravitate to these groups usually do so with a religious zeal masquerading as advanced intelligence, which is interesting because it's been my experience that these guys are of average intelligence and education. The words "vicarious" and "compensation" seem to apply.

I recall one conversation during which a friend (and truly decent person) told me that like Ayn Rand, he did not believe in God because he would not accept anything that could not be proven scientifically in the physical world. Later in that same conversation he claimed to accept Darwin's theory of evolution... which I reminded him, has never been "proven" at all.

Rand's heir apparent Nathan Blumenthal, changed his name to Nathaniel Branden, much like Rand changed her name from Rosenbaum (what happened to objective truth? What are they hiding from?) It also seems a little bit ridiculous to have another person carry on her "individualism" ... were they to become an individual of two?

Enter more cult-like behavior... she told Branden to marry his girlfriend and then started having sex with him. Oh, did I mention that she was also married? As with cults, partner swapping and group sex are often all the rage. However, so as to appear to be "better than" common immoral people, Rand decided that if the spouses were informed, it became almost a behavior of a higher calling... unlike stupid Christians who would simply consider it adultery.

Blumenthal/Brandens later founded a group of Rand "individualists" who nicknamed themselves ...wait for it...“the Collective”

It's like the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, "you are all individuals" Brian shouts at the crowd following him, to which they respond in unison "yes,we are all individuals!"

Sometimes truth is even funnier than fiction.

Hope that helps, thanks.

"Hope that helps."

I was not looking for help. I was asking why that exact response to that exact question got labeled "Evidence of a Cult."

You did not answer.

Hi John,

I think that Mark is using the word "cult" correctly here. Especially if you consider Mystery Cults in the ancient world (Rome, Greece, Egypt). Mystery Cults believed that you would gain enlightenment by obtaining a truth that others did not possess (gnosis). You would receive this gnosis by receiving a secret or by initiiation. This gnosis is not free for everyone to obtain - not democratic.

Didn't Ayn Rand naturally think of those of average intelligence or below not able to understand her theories? Didn't she also find religion for idiots? Wouldn't that, make her philosophy somewhat similar to a mystery cult?

Christine, even before discussing what he said or what you said about what is a cult, I am simply inquiring after an explanation of that specific post. He sent an email, got a response, did not comment on the response, but labelled it "Evidence of a Cult". I am simply inquiring into what specific idea in the response caused him to label his post in that way.

I read <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> at the behest of a libertarian friend some years ago, and, though aspects of her philosophy appealed, it was clear, from her description of the fictional train crash (in which everyone who disagrees with her social policy is killed), that she was no friend.

I was not looking for help. I was asking why that exact response to that exact question got labeled "Evidence of a Cult." - John

Sorry John, at the time I posted that comment, it was about two days since the previous one and I pretty much thought that this thread was dead... not my best effort, I apologize.

Please let me explain. At the time I wrote "Evidence of a Cult" I was mulling over in my mind how atheism, Darwinism and Rand's Objectivism seem to rise to the level of cults in many ways and how your response reinforced those thoughts. A more accurate title for that particular post would have been "Evidence of a cult-like mindset" because of your claim that you would discard all of Rand's ideas if she had believed in God.

Since you did not state otherwise, logic dictates that you would also dismiss the ideas of anyone else who believes in God. To illustrate how patently absurd this position is, contemplate the fact that you would be dismissing St. Thomas Aquinas (possibly the most brilliant man of all time), Sir Isaac Newton (recently voted the most important scientist of all time by fellow scientists) and every U.S. president ... just for starters.

Much like your blunt statement about being an atheist, cults leave no room for outsiders. Hitler had anyone who didn't walk lock-step with the Nazi philosophy killed. Stalin not only had them killed, but he also had books updated with their photos removed.


Just wondering, why were you ok with this post?

"There was no "error in her thinking." - John

And there is the punchline. Once again the Cult of Rand rises to the level of a religion.


Thanks John

Vainglory is not an exact synonym of vanity, is it? Is it not instead a compound that is Exactly What It Says On The Tin, ie, "worthless splendor", ie, braggadocio in ultimately meaningless things, or unwarranted pride?

I ask because it has been one of my favorite words since I first encountered it, funnily enough, in a Chinese to English dictionary as a translation of "aimuxurong", literally "adore in vain".

Hi John,

I think that your insight on Rand was interesting, but I was very curious about how you found this website. I know that Rand adherents generally have an acrimonious relationship with religion in general and Catholicism in particular.

I think your persepctive contributed to the discussion, although I somewhat doubt that any converts were made on either side.

Why don't you believe in God (and I mean you, not Ayn Rand - we already spoke about her).

I know that this stream is probably dead, but I am very curious...

PS - Joye, you are correct, they are not exactly the same. Cool insight on the Chinese translation (which is spot on). I would ask how to say it, but I would probably massacare it in either Mandarin or Cantonese.

When writers decided to take pot shots at Ayn Rand, such as Mr. Zmirak in this essay, they might think they are just smearing to the choir, but actually this blog is indexed and google sends out alerts. Sometimes I visit such attempts to expose the folly of the writer. I am not after converts, just wanting to correct errors and demonstrate hypocrisy, as in #23 above.

I already made my case against this essay in #23 and Mr. Zmirak just avoided my points. That is typical. His response was, well, Jesus was God so he can't be vainglorious claiming he is God and that Rand might escape sin of vainglory as long as she credits God for her gifts. Against my strong condemnation in 89 he just avoids responsibility for his tremendously offensive 'wire monkey' paragraph and all other insulting comments, then tries to claim that psychologizing in one direction is okay (it is not a refutation of ideas in either direction.)

The question is not why I don't believe in God, but why some people still do.

Thanks for your answer. I had no idea how you turned up at this website, although I did appreciate your comments.

I think the reason why you didn't receive the responses you wanted is that this is a Catholic website. We believe in God and we believe that Jesus is the son of God and one with His very being.

I may be making a stretch here, so forgive me if I do, but your last name indicates that it is highly likely that you do have some knowledge of Catholicism.

There is a common saying, which I think applies to both Catholics and Rand devotees which goes something like this, "For a believer no proof is needed, for a non-believer, no proof is ever enough".

If you want to know more about what Catholics believe, you may want to Google the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As for why we Catholics believe, I could ask you the same question, you can answer me, and it still wouldn't be enough for me to truly understand.

As for why I believe in God, I have studied (mostly in secular institutions and on my own), I have prayed, and I have come to the decision that the Catholic "way" is the way to peace and happiness in this world of turmoil. It is the rudder to my ship and I am a better person because I follow the way - because I believe in God. Christ was a man in peace (through all historical accounts), throughout a life filled with such turmoil that his Godhead was proved to humans by this triumph of peace.

In contrast, Ayn Rand led a bitter life and was not peaceful - but rather caused much personal pain to those closest to her. I choose not to follow the teachings of someone like that. Your choice, however, is your own and I wish you the best.

Sure it does.



"...haven't deserved to suffer." The man the Samaritan helped hadn't deserved to suffer. But suppose circumstances had been different, that the man the robber intended to take for a victim had been able to fend off the criminal and continue on his way unharmed. When the Samaritan passed the spot later, it was the murderous robber the Samaritan found beside the road beaten and broken and the Samaritan recognized him as dangerous criminal with wicked intentions. What then, Christine?



"Sacrifice," as Ayn Rand uses the word, is to give up a greater value for a lesser one. She does not confuse "sacrifice" with "good will toward others."

Does Ayn Rand approve of helping "those unworthy or inferior?"

"Unworthy" in the moral sense? No. And that follows an example Jesus set. (You can look it up in the Gospel.) "Inferior" as Cherryl, or Eddie Willers, or even a panhandler riding the rails (all of them examples of lesser characters that Dagny, the heroine of Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged offers to help) are? Yes.



I commend to you the parable of the Wise and Foolish Bridesmaids, Christine, in which each of the wise ones "placed herself over others" - namely, the foolish ones - by choosing not to share her supply of lamp oil. Jesus seems to have approved. The Gospels also give an example of Jesus "shaking the dust from His feet" as he leaves a town of unworthy people for whom he worked no cures. Later, as he sends out his disciples in His name, He gives them a similar instruction regarding those who are unworthy.

Perhaps "she seems vain" to you, Christine, because Ayn Rand does not try to be holier than Jesus, eh?

Thank you Micha for clarifying that Ayn Rand was a true and upstanding Christian. I think you are reaching here, but that is your prerogative. Ayn Rand is not here to defend herself.

In conserving the oil in my lamp, I won't answer more than this, except, as I wrote to John applies in this instance too. I wish you the best.

What you don't here is me shaking your dust off my sandals... I am doing it - thanks for the advice.

To be completely clear Micha, as I wasn't earlier (sorry), please read posts #108 and #110. Except for the Catholic last name, the rest does apply to you as well as John.

I will not relate more about this except that the parable of the oil lamps is about spiritual gifts given to those who will not accept them, as is the writings of the shaking off the dust of sandals. Because of posts 108 and 110, I will now shake off the rest of your unbelieving dust, as I don't think there is any way you will be convinced by written words, since over 100 posts still has you in a tizzie.

My discussion won't help you (I won't waste more oil), but you are on my ever growing prayer list. Don't worry, being in my prayers won't hurt, because you don't believe in God anyway...

Now I'll shake shake shake the dust...

I accept your gratitude. I myself did not claim that Ayn Rand was a Christian. By concluding that she was, Christine, you must be far more cognizant than I of the invisible extent of the Church.

Your surprising declaration of Ayn Rand's belief in Jesus the Christ inspired me to recall that the Canon of the Saints does include people who weren't nice (e.g., St. Jerome) and whose lives were spotted with sexual license (e.g., St. Augustine).

And to all those who attempted ad hominem attacks on the ideas Rand professed, I remind them that if that were a valid argument then the Church's teachings would be even more vulnerable than Rand to such attacks.

Yes, there are elements of her philosophy that are compatible with Catholicism, but are those elements really unique to her, or did she simply popularize those ideas or frame them in a vivid manner? And are those elements, such as reason, capitalism, industriousness et al, really central to her philosophy or extraneous to what amounts to, at its core, another manifestion of atheistic materialism? Your assertion that she didn't understand her own philosophy is extraordinary. She said that you can't be a theist and an Objectivist and she's right, so I reject Objectivism. That doesn't mean I reject reason, personal achievement, capitalism, etc. I merely reject Rand's assertion that those holding principles necessitates acceptance of her materialist, atheist, self-glorifying premises.

I don't understand what difference it would make to the truth or falsity of "elements of her philosophy that are compatible with Catholicism" if those elements are "unique to her" or not.

This is answered in her little book Philosophy, Who Needs It? Reason is definitely "central to her philosophy," reason is the basis of her system's epistemology. Capitalism (as she defined it: "an economic system based on private property in which all property is privately owned") is an immediate product of her system's ethics. Rand doesn't (in my recollection of her writings) didn't make mere industriousness a central value. Catholic scholastics of the Late Medieval had already figured out that what we now know as the Labor Theory of Value is based on a mistaken identification of what value is. Rand came to the same conclusion, so she did not value industriousness much for its own sake. The related trait she did give high regard to was efficacy. Aristotle's influence on her view of what is the best life for human beings to live is quite apparent here.

Ayn Rand asserted the same thing about Plato, if memory serves. Philosophical system-builders rarely anticipate all the implications of the premises upon which they build. Mena is not unreasonable to suggest that such was also the case with Rand.



While Rand's Objectivism is certainly materialist and atheist and therefore rejects God's First Great Commandment, I doubt her philosophy is "self-glorifying" as you define it, Jeff. Her view that one should value ones self can also be derived from the Second Great Commandment, to love thy neighbor as one loves oneself. Implicit in that commandment is that one love oneself and one cannot love that which one does not value. The most widely recognized words of <a href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3398.html">Rabbi Hillel</a> affirm the principle that ones self has value that one should respect.

Mena's remarks about Ayn Rand's beliefs about religion describe a lot of people who had insufficient good examples of religious faith united with reason as they were growing up and may have had a lot of poor examples. One needn't impugn any uniquely intense mysticism to the popular practices of Russian Orthodox Christianity and the Jewish faith in early 20th-century Russia to explain how an especially bright young person could reject religion and embrace atheism. Such happens in America among children raised in Jewish and Christian, even Catholic Christian, homes with some frequency. From the circumstances of Rand's formative years, one might suppose that there was truly might have been the impediment of invincible ignorance before her. Rand turned to atheism when she was rather young, before any of the World War II experiences described by Mark (#92). I concur with the suggestion made by (another?) Mark (#96) to remember Rand (born Alice Rosenbaum) in prayers for the souls of the departed.

This is a nice partial response to Rand, diluted by the author's unsupported sideswipes at socialism and multiculturalism. The author seems to want to preserve some of Rand's venomous conclusions regarding the supposed impossibility of basic human tolerance and cooperation, despite all-too-astutely noting the failure of her rationale. If he wants to conclude that socialism and multiculturalism are nevertheless full hate and envy and powerlust somehow, although apparently not for the reasons Rand claimed, he should spell out his own basis for these equally irrational conclusions. Perhaps he has a better argument for mindless selfishness and the supposedly infallible self-correction of free markets than she come up with?

Or perhaps the author is simply arguing from the same church as Rand, merely in a different pew, or so to speak.